Signs Gospel

The Signs Gospel or the semeia source is a hypothetical gospel account of the life of Jesus Christ which some scholars have suggested could have been a primary source document for the Gospel of John. This theory has its basis in source criticism. Since the commentary of Rudolf Bultmann was published in 1941,[1] the hypothesis of a semeia (sign or miracle) source has gained some acceptance.[2]

Part of a series of articles on
John in the Bible
"St John the Evangelist" by Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri), 1620s
Saint John the Evangelist, Domenichino
Johannine literature
Authorship
Related literature
See also
Russian Orthodox icon of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, 18th century (Iconostasis of Transfiguration Church, Kizhi Monastery, Karelia, Russia).

Internal evidence

One possible construction of the "internal evidence" states that the Beloved Disciple wrote an account of the life of Jesus. However, this disciple died unexpectedly, necessitating that a revised gospel be written. In other words, it may be that John “is the source" of the Johannine tradition but "not the final writer of the tradition." [3] Therefore, scholars are no longer looking for the identity of a single writer but for numerous authors whose authorship has been absorbed into the gospel's development over a period of time and in several stages.[4][5][6]

Bultmann

The hypothesis of the Gospel of John being composed in layers over a period of time originated in the work of Rudolf Bultmann in 1941. Bultmann suggested that the author(s) of John depended in part on an author who wrote an earlier account.[7] This hypothetical "Signs Gospel" listing Christ's miracles was independent of, and not used by, the synoptic gospels. It was believed to have been circulating before the year 70 AD. Bultmann's conclusion was so controversial that heresy proceedings were instituted against him and his writings.

Later scholarship

Nevertheless, this hypothesis has not disappeared. Scholars such as Raymond E. Brown believe the original author of the Signs Gospel to be the Beloved Disciple. They argue that the disciple who formed this community was both a historical person and a companion of Jesus Christ. Brown also suggests that the Beloved Disciple had been a follower of John the Baptist before joining Jesus.[8]

It is now widely agreed that the Gospel of John draws upon a tradition of Miracles of Jesus which is substantially independent of the three synoptic gospels.[9]

Robert T. Fortna

Robert Fortna, a member of the Jesus Seminar, argued that there are at least two distinct writing styles contained in the Gospel of John.[10] The later style contains highly developed and sophisticated midrash and theological essays attached superficially - even "mechanically" at some points - to the former source. The other - earlier - style is the original 2-part Signs Gospel, consisting of a Signs Source (SQ) and a Passion Source (PQ). It is simple, direct and historical in style and can be roughly reconstructed as follows:[11]

The order of the signs in the Gospel of John is different from their order in the reconstructed Signs Gospel. In the Signs Gospel, they are presented in a geographically logical order, going from Galilee to Jerusalem. In the Gospel of John, they have been rearranged to reflect Jesus' repeated movements to and from Jerusalem. This would explain some of the geographical difficulties in the Gospel of John, such as the sudden shift from Judaea to Galilee in John 6:1.[12]

See also

References
  1. Das Evangelium des Johannes (1941), translated as The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Westminster ,John Knox Press, 1971, ISBN 0-664-20893-2
  2. D. Moody Smith (1976), "The Setting and Shape of a Johannine Narrative Source", in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 95, No. 2 (June 1976), pp. 231-241: "Once it is granted that John's miracle tradition is not based upon the Synoptics, a miracle source (or a source that included miracles) becomes a reasonable hypothesis", accessed 6 February 2016
  3. Paul N. Anderson, John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, Volume 1, Symposium series, no. 44, Society of Biblical Literature Pub, 2007 p.78
  4. Raymond Edward Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Paulist Press, 1979 pp.31 - 34
  5. The Muratorian fragment dates from around 180 It states that while John was the primary author, several people were involved, that mutual revision was part of the original intent of the authors, and that the editors included the apostle Andrew. (Geza Vermes, The authentic gospel of Jesus, London, Penguin Books. 2004. A note on sources, p. x-xvii.)
  6. Paul N. Anderson, John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, Volume 1, Symposium series, no. 44, Society of Biblical Literature Pub, 2007 p.77
  7. Frank E. Peters "How to Proceed" The Quest: The Historians' Quest for the Historical Jesus and Muhammad, Modern Scholar 2008.
  8. Raymond Edward Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Paulist Press, 1979 pp.31 - 34
  9. D. Moody Smith (1976), "The Setting and Shape of a Johannine Narrative Source", in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 95, No. 2 (June 1976), pp. 231-241: "Although the evidence is not entirely unambiguous and scholarly opinion is not unanimous, the trend of much recent work is against John's dependence upon the Synoptics", accessed 6 February 2016
  10. Fortna, Robert Tomson (1988). The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor. Fortress Press.
  11. "The Signs Gospel". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved November 19, 2018.
  12. Fortna, Robert Tomson (2007). "The Gospel of John and the Signs Gospel". In Thatcher, Tom (ed.). What we have heard from the beginning: the past, present, and future of Johannine studies. Baylor University Press. pp. 150–152.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.